Here, Plaintiff states in itsComplaint that the damages are "Under $10,000" and that "Plaintiff will remit all sums in excess of the jurisdiction of the [state] court." (Complaint, at 1; id. ¶ 10.) In asserting that the amount in controversy is satisfied, Defendants simply make the conclusory statement that "Defendant claims her damages exceed $75,000." (Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1, at 3.) Such conclusory statements do not satisfy Defendants' burden concerning amount in controversy.

Defendants also claim that the Court has jurisdiction under bankruptcy-related statutes 28 U.S.C. §1334 and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). (Notice, at 3.) Defendants do not identify who is bankrupt, and misconstrue the nature of the underlying lawsuit in this case. Here, the underlying action is not a bankruptcy action filed under title 11. Rather, it is an unlawful detainer action. Because the unlawful detainer action could not have been originally filed in federal court, removal is not proper under 28 U.S.C. 1441.

In closing, the Court reminds Defendants that "[s]peedy adjudication is desirable [in unlawful detainer actions] to prevent subjecting the landlord to undeserved economic loss and the tenant to unmerited harassment and dispossession when his lease or rental agreement gives him the right to peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property." Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 73 (1972). Improper removal of unlawful detainer cases raises the concerns stated in Lindsey. Defendants are cautioned not to improperly seek federal jurisdiction, particularly for delay. See Newman & Cahn, LLP v. Sharp, 388 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (finding that a removal was "frivolous and unwarranted," but declining to order sanctions against the removing party "because she [was] pro se," though warning her "that the filing of another frivolous paper with the Court may result in monetary sanctions under Rule 11"). Similarly, sanctions might be necessary here against Defendants in the future.

Defendants fail to establish that federal jurisdiction exists over this case. Thus, the case is REMANDED to the appropriate state court.

Initials of

Preparer ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.